User blog:Bronzedew/How Value Encyclopedias Can Wreck the Feral Economy Before Launch
PREFACE. First and foremost, let me preface this blog post with this: this editorial is intended to generate dialogue between players. This argument is not intended to be against those that have created, monitor, or contribute to value Wikis, but instead, against the principle of creating value encyclopedias in the first place. What I am saying here is not fact, but my observations and opinions. THE ISSUE AT HAND. Since Feral was announced, many people have been excited about its release, especially since it is targeted towards an older demographic of players. However, it can be argued that some people have gotten a little too excited, making item value encyclopedias for Feral when the closed beta invitations haven't even been sent yet. Here's the problem with that, and why I think it's a'' dangerous'' idea. ARTICLE I. The creation of a value encyclopedia like a Wiki, though helpful, makes values static and unlikely to change. ''' Before value encyclopedias for Animal Jam were created, the values in the game were determined based on the general consensus of traders, depending on its quantity, age, likelihood of returning, and its appearance. The general consensus would often change depending on the public's opinion of an item. For example, if fewer players have an interest in a particular item, its value would decrease, as it is not in demand, even if it is a hard-to-find item. If people like an item that actually has a larger supply than other item that is harder to find but still cool, that item in with the larger quantity is more likely to be traded for, leading to its value to increase. A lot of items that are small in quantity but deemed not desirable are usually only sought after by niche collectors, who hope to gain a monopoly or larger portion of the supply in order to increase its value. In short, they're investing. This trends change over time depending on who's playing and trading actively. These values were fluid, and changed often. When value encyclopedias appear, though they are recording the public's general consensus on an item, the "de facto", it actually reinforces the consensus as the item's "de jure" value. For example, let's say that a player is looking to trade for a party hat from the 2012 New Year's events. They'll express interest to their friends and the public, and will consult them on what the general consensus' agreement is on the value. However, like a lot of prudent players, they'll research the current value and base their offer on it. When they see the encyclopedia, the player acknowledges that, "Oh, this must be the general consensus. Therefore, its value will be X, and players will probably only accept my trade if its greater than or equal to that value." The problem is, once many people view the encyclopedia, they all believe that that IS the only value threshold (greater than or equal to) that will merit a successful trade. This means that people will only accept what is deemed the "X", the seen value, and only accept what is greater because it benefits them. Players trading for that item will not want to invest because they'll see it as an overtrade and a waste when no one else will give them items of similar value when they trade it away. In short, the values are reinforced to a degree that the previous fluidity enjoyed is disrupted. Look at how rigid the values have become after about 2015-16. Some of the values listed here are the same, or even exactly the same, as when I played a couple years ago. Compounded with the fact that many players are aging out of the game naturally, these static values lead to a decrease in interest in trading. Some players will think, "Why bother? The values never change here, and it's hard to move up the ladder when people will only accept this rigid value." Though the Wiki can't be entirely "to blame" for a person quitting the game per se, it can be a contributing factor. These factors are already showing up in other places, too. '''ARTICLE 2. ' It puts too much power in the hands of the few to determine how the economy functions.' When people make and join an encyclopedia, especially MONTHS ''before the game's ''CLOSED BETA TEST, they will be the first to exert editing influence and can change what the values for each item are on their Wiki, which will be seen by the public. This means that the few will have the ability to have nearly all of the say in what the "true consensus" on items are, and that's dangerous. That means that other people without similar influence / abilities will have their voices quashed. They will no longer be able to express or debate the value of an item based on the factors discussed previously: its quantity, age, likelihood of returning, and its appearance. ARTICLE 3. If these trends affect Feral, it could be detrimental to a game that hasn't even been fully launched. Note that the section is more opinionated than the previous section. ''' In my opinion, I think that people have gotten too zealous and hung up about items' values because of wanting fame, riches in a game, and wanting ''power.'' They want to be a beta tester because ''they're the first'', and can hoard a ton of items and make a Wiki to say what each item is worth. They want the ''fame and pride of being an early tester, a contributor, a moderator, or a staff member of a Wiki, and they want to enjoy all the powers of seniority status and the privileges that can be toted with it. But most of all, '''''they want the power. They want the ability they never had to control the game's economy in a psuedo-oligarchy. When the game launches, they'll already be known, respected, and revered, rendering the voices of the "plebians" left behind to bend over backwards to ''their ''cliques' decisions. You could consider this a logical fallacy because it's a "slippery slope", and you may be right. I might just be a little too suspicious. But also consider what other worth encyclopedias look like, and how power has been concentrated there. A CONCLUSION. Therefore, these encyclopedias, though intended to be a guide, can be incredibly dangerous because it puts too much power in the hands of the few. What does the forum think about my assertion? Is it reasonable and addressable, or is it too much of stretch? Comment below with your opinion. Category:Blog posts